FACTS: Petitioners
filed an unlawful detainer case against respondent for failure to pay rentals on the leased property owned by petitioners. MeTC decided in favor of the petitioners. While the respondent’s appeal of the MeTC’s decision is pending before the RTC, respondent filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages with the RTCanother branch!. "n the complaint for damages, respondent alleged that he supposedly suffered embarrassment and humiliation when petitioners distributed copies of the above#mentioned MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case to the homeowners of $orseshoe %illage while respondent’s appeal was still pending. ISSUE: W"& RULING)
the respondent is entitled for an award of d amages moral ' e(emplary!
&o.
Petitioners are obliged to respect respondent’s good name even though they are opposing parties in the unlawful detainer case. *s *rticle *rticle + of the Civil Code re-uires, /e0very person must, in the e(ercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with 1ustice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.2 * violation violation of such principle constitutes an /340 abuse of rights, a tortuous tortuous conduct. We e(pounded in Sea Commercial Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals i /340 that) The principle of abuse of rights stated in the above article, departs from the classical theory that he who uses a right in1ures no one.2 The modern tendency is to depart from the classical and traditional theory, theory, and to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit. *rticle + was intended intended to e(pand the concept of torts by granting granting ade-uate legal remedy remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. 5f mere fault or negligence in one’s acts can ma6e him liable for damages for in1ury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad faith ma6e him liable. The absence of good faith is essential to abuse of right. 7ood faith is an honest intention to abstain from ta6ing any unconscientious advantage of another, even through the forms or technicalities of the law, together with an absence of all information or belief of fact which would render the transaction unconscientious. unconscientious. 5n business relations, it means good faith as understood by men of affairs. While *rticle + may have been intended as a mere declaration of principle, the cardinal law on human conduct2 e(pressed in said article has given rise to certain rules, e.g . that where a person e(ercises his rights but does so arbitrarily or un1ustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in 6eeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability. The elements of an abuse of rights under *rticle *rticle + are) +! there is a legal right or duty8 3! which is e(ercised in bad faith8 9! for the sole intent of pre1udicing or in1uring another. ii /3:0
Petitioners are also e(pected to respect respondent’s dignity, personality, personality, privacy and peace of mind2 under *rticle 3; of the Civil Code, which provides) *RT. 3;.
Pryin rying g int into the priv privac acy y of anot nother’ her’s s resid esiden enc ce8
3
Medd Meddli ling ng with with or dist distur urbin bing g the the pri priva vate te life life or fami family ly rela relati tion ons s of of ano anoth ther er88
9
5ntr 5ntrig igui uing ng to caus ause ano anoth ther er to be alie aliena nate ted d fro from m his his frie friend nds8 s8
4
%e(in %e(ing g or humili humiliati ating ng anot another her on acco account unt of his his reli religio gious us beli beliefs efs,, lowly lowly statio station n in life life,, place place of birt birth, h, phys physica icall defect, or other personal condition.
Thus, *rticle 33++=! of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages for acts and actions referred to in *rticle 3;, among other provisions, of the Civil Code. 5n Concepcion v. Court of Appeals Appeals,,iii/3;0 we e(plained that) The philosophy behind *rt. *rt. 3; underscores the necessity necessity for its inclusion in our civil civil law. The Code Commission stressed stressed in no uncertain terms that that the human personality must must be e(alted. The sacredness of human personality is a concomitant consideration consideration of every plan for human amelioration. The touchstone of every system of law, of the culture culture and civili>ation of every country, is how far it dignifies man. 5f the statutes insufficiently protect a person from being un1ustly humiliated, in short, if human personality is not e(alted # then the laws are indeed d efective. Thus, under this article, the rights of persons are amply protected, and damages are provided for violations of a person’s dignity, personality, personality, privacy and peace of mind. 5t is petitioner’s position that the act imputed to him does not constitute any of those enumerated in *rts. 3; and 33+. 33+. 5n this respect, respect, the law is clear. The violations mentioned mentioned in the codal codal provisions are not e(clusive but are merely e(amples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. ?amages therefore are
allowable for actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive language. @nder *rt. 33+A of the Civil Code, moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious an(iety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shoc6, social humiliation, and similar in1ury, although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered if they are the pro(imate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. iv/3A0 And third , respondent alleged that the distribution by petitioners to $orseshoe %illage homeowners of copies of the MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case, which was adverse to respondent and still on appeal before the RTC#Branch , had no apparent lawful or 1ust purpose e(cept to humiliate respondent or assault his character. *s a result, respondent suffered damages D becoming the tal6 of the town and being deprived of his political career. Petitioners reason that respondent has no cause of action against them since the MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case was part of public records. 5t is already settled that the public has a right to see and copy 1udicial records and documents. v/30 $owever, this is not a case of the public see6ing and being denied access to 1udicial records and documents. The controversy is rooted in the dissemination by petitioners of the MeTC 1udgment against respondent to $orseshoe %illage homeowners, who were not involved at all in the unlawful detainer case, thus, purportedly affecting negatively respondent’s good name and reputation among said homeowners. The unlawful detainer case was a private dispute between petitioners and respondent, and the MeTC decision against respondent was then still pending appeal before the RTC#Branch , rendering suspect petitioners’ intentions for distributing copies of said MeTC decision to non#parties in the case. While petitioners were free to copy and distribute such copies of the MeTC 1udgment to the public, the -uestion is whether they did so with the intent of humiliating respondent and destroying the latter’s good name and reputation in the community. &evertheless, we further declare that the Court of *ppeals erred in already awarding moral and e(emplary damages in respondent’s favor when the parties have not yet had the chance to present any evidence before the RTC#Branch 33A. 5n civil cases, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence. 5t is incumbent upon the party claiming affirmative relief from the court to convincingly prove its claim. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence are not e-uivalent to proof under our Rules. 5n short, mere allegations are not evidence. vi/30 *t this point, the finding of the Court of *ppeals of bad faith and malice on the part of petitioners has no factual basis. 7ood faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. 7ood faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. 5t consists of the intention to abstain from ta6ing an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Bad faith, on the other hand, does not simply connote bad 1udgment to simple negligence. 5t imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obli-uity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of 6nown duty due to some motive or interest or ill will that parta6es of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or spite and spea6s not in response to duty. 5t implies an intention to do ulterior and un1ustifiable harm. vii/9=0 We cannot subscribe to respondent’s argument that there is no more need for the presentation of evidence by the parties since petitioners, in moving for the dismissal of respondent’s complaint for damages, hypothetically admitted respondent’s allegations. The hypothetical admission of respondent’s allegations in the complaint only goes so far as determining whether said complaint should be dismissed on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. * finding that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action does not necessarily mean that the complaint is meritorious8 it shall only result in the reinstatement of the complaint and the hearing of the case for presentation of evidence by the parties. Manaloto vs. %eloso
i[24]377 Phil. 221 (1999). ii[25]Id. at 229-230. iii[26]381 Phil. 90 (2000). iv[27]Id. at 99. v[28] Hilado v. Judge Reyes, 496 Phil. 55, 68 (2005).
vi[29] Mayor v. Belen, G.R. No. 151035, !"# 3, 2004, 430 $%R& 561, 567. vii[30] Arra Realty Corporation v. Guarantee Development Corporation and Insurance Agency, G.R. No. 142310, $#'t##* 20, 2004, 438 $%R& 441, 469.
